Your Humble Scribe

Friday, June 20, 2008

Why is it never about the victims?

July 27, 1969 -- Susan Atkins helps helps Bobby Beausoleil and Charles Manson rob and murder a music teacher for two car titles.

August 9, 1969 -- Susan Atkins participates and aids in the brutal murders of five people, one of whom was two weeks away from giving birth and allowed to plead for the life of her unborn child before being stabbed sixteen times.

August 10, 1969 -- Susan Atkins was present and giving support during the home invasion and vicious stabbing of a husband -- which paused only to go stab his wife 41 times, before returning to the still-alive husband and continuing to stab him until his death.

Susan Atkins confessed to all of this -- and more -- during Grand Jury testimony; in conversations with other inmates and in her autobiography.

Susan Atkins was found guilty and convicted of murder, and on March 29, 1971, she was sentenced to death.

Note that she received the death penalty for her actions.

As a result of People v. Anderson in 1972, Susan Atkins' sentence was commuted to life in prison.

Life. In. Prison.

Here recently, Susan Atkins' lawyer/husband has issued a press release contending that Susan Atkins has brain cancer and is down to weeks to live.

He has filed for a "compassionate release" for Susan Atkins, so that she may leave prison and spend her last days in the comfort of family, friends and freedom.

She would not be the first murderer that California has "compassionately released". The reason given is cited (amongst others) as cost effectiveness -- medical care is expensive.

Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you that the death penalty is more expensive than Life in Prison.

As far as Susan Atkins goes, I have two things to say about that:

1) Sharon Tate's child would have been 39 this year. She would probably have had children of her own. She would have laughed, loved and been loved, made good choices and bad, danced, watched sunsets, broken hearts, had her heart broken, lived, learned, and made her mark under the stars in the way that everyone else does.

Except that a pack of monsters slaughtered her before she even got a chance to see the light of day. Butchered her as her mother begged for her unborn life -- and Susan Atkins laughed about it.

2) The sentence was 'life in prison' and Susan Atkins is still alive -- thus I don't think that the sentence has been fully carried out as yet.

Susan Atkins should be grateful for the extra 39 years, for the chances to marry, to simply draw breath each morning -- for being able to do all the small things each of those 39 years ... that she denied her victims.

Sharon Tate's baby was a boy, named Paul Richard, and buried in his mother's arms. Compassionate release for an animal who could stab a pregnant woman to death? I don't think so. Let the bitch rot. Her life was spared decades ago.

i'm with the majority opinion so far, there was no empathy or compassion when she murdered sharon tate and her unborn child, why should there be any now that atkins is facing her own end. leave her in the cell and waste no sympathy on her, she had none for her victim."gunner"

Let her husband/lawyer share her cell if he is so concerned about her. I remember that case and the article about it in "Life" magazine. That whole crew should have been forced to dig their own graves, thrown into them alive, and buried.emdfl

It's a sad sign for our society that many have decided that we are too sophisticated to administer the death penalty. Arguments about cost, deterrence, or anything else are foolish. As a society we have the right, no the responsibility, to remove verminous scum such as you from our society. If you were not caught, how many more would you and the Manson gang have murdered?

It's ironic that you are dying from cancer, because you and your ilk are a cancer on decent society.

You should die alone, away from the ones you love and who love you. I can think of no more fitting end.

Calmly, with consideration for the road which may lie ahead, and for the youngers who may emulate our actions, or hold them up as acts of barbarism to be eschewed.

Calmly, quietly explain that it is not right for good people to pay for this unproductive person to receive medical attention. We should not rob at gunpoint good citizens to pay for vile murderesses. That's all.

No morphine, no nothing. The Manson 'Family' had no compassion nor mercy for the pain they inflicted on people; in fact, they did it on purpose. I don't care if she does realize the wrong she has done; I doubt she could ever do so unless it was with an ulterior motive that would benefit herself.No matter what Suzie suffers, it will never make up for the agony and loss in which she willingly, eagerly, avidly participated.Yes, I am of the 'eye for an eye' mindset and all this "forgiveness is good for you" is a bunch of BS. Pain for pain, death for death. Full stop.LawMom

This weekend, via another blog I read an article about a woman in OR. She was denied (under Medicaid) coverage for Tarceva for her recurrent lung cancer, but they would fund drugs for assisted suicide. (http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=106873&sid=1&fid=1)

Several months ago, I saw a show detailing how a cop-killer in, I think, CO was receiving care for his metastatic colon cancer. Because he was paraplegic (he was shot but not killed in his run on several policemen's lives), and the resultant poor nutritional status secondary to chemo/cancer he was being kept in a hospital ward on an air-flow mattress....big bucks for that.

Why does our society make it easier for people who have cruelly injured others to receive care while the working poor/the disabled have no access to care?

Another topic, I know.....but somehow, this just seems not right. Perhaps, we could arrange for for Susan Atkins to be cared for under the Oregon Health Plan, eh? I wonder what care OR's prisoners receive.

PS: Sorry if the link to the article doesn't work; the link is long, and I am not proficient with html)

Quite frankly, I think it's outrageous that someone like her was allowed to marry in prison. I sure as Hell don't want her last days made "easier". Or happier. Or less painful.

I don't think we should deprive inmates of medical care, HOWEVER, what is the benefit of providing medical care for someone with a life sentence who is terminally ill? And, to give her a taste of compassion, like she has shown to her victims, I believe we should save the taxpayers the expense of pain medication in her final days.

I must say I don't have an ounce of sympathy for susan atkins. She deserves to stay right where she is and I second the 'NO PAIN MEDS AT ALL" Why would she feel that she deserves any type of forgiveness for her part in the horrendous acts she participated in!!

The "Only bread and water" works for me also. But make it stale bread.